Preamble

The House met at Twelve of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

OUSE DKAINAGE BILL,

Reported, without Amendment, from the Joint Committee, together with a Special Report and Minutes of Evidence.

Report and Special Report brought up, and read;

Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 113.]

Orders of the Day — LANDLORD AND TENANT (No. 2) BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [8th November] on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

CLAUSE 5.—(Right to new lease in certain cases.)

Amendment proposed: In page 7, line 24, at the end, to insert the words
but such new lease shall in no case exceed the landlord's interest in the premises."— (Sir G. Hohler.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Amendment negatived.

Sir WILLIAM PERRING: I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, to leave out the word "fourteen" and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-one."
When the Bill was before the House on Second Reading there was no Clause in it dealing with the period for which the tribunal could grant a new lease. Discretionary power was left to the tribunal to fix what, in their judgment, was an appropriate period. In Committee, the Home Secretary moved that it be 21 years, which it gave me very much satisfaction to support, but, unfortunately, by a majority of two it was decided to insert "fourteen" and not "twenty-one." In moving this Amendment, I am not actuated by a desire to benefit either the landlord or the tenant, who will go before the tribunal for a new lease. The aim of the Bill is not to injure the landlord, but to prevent him injuring the tenant. The merit of my Amendment is that it does not injure either. I desire to give the tribunal a discretionary power to fix either 14 or 21 years, as circumstances justify. It may be that a considerable number of landlords would prefer 21 years to 14. The landlord may not be a wealthy man. It may be his only property, or it may be the only source of income of a widow. If the tenant can make out his case for compensation, it will have to be reflected in the granting of a new lease if the
tribunal so decides. I would ask the House to consider it from this aspect. Assuming the tribunal thinks £1,000 would be an adequate sum to satisfy the tenant's claim, it must be expressed in terms of a lease. If it were expressed in the terms of a lease of ten years it would be, approximately, £100 a year, but if it were expressed in the term of 20 years it would be satisfied by a reduction in the rental of £50 a year.
It might very well happen that the landlord would much prefer to have £50 reduced from his annual rental of £100 because it might be his only means of living. Having regard to the facts, it must be clear that a landlord might desire a smaller reduction in his rent for a longer period than for a shorter one, and in the interest of the landlord it is desirable that the tribunal should have this discretionary power. It does not follow that they would exercise it. The circumstances of the case will control and govern their judgment. On the other hand, the tenant might desire, and both parties might agree to a period of 21 years if it were in the discretion of the tribunal to give it. I think the Government would be well advised to concede this point and give the tribunal that discretionary power which I seek. It may be suggested that as this was defeated in Committee it is not an appropriate occasion to reopen it on Report, but, as I understand it, it is appropriate on Report to revise and correct and straighten out and co-ordinate anything that has happened in Committee, sometimes by accident, which on second consideration may deserve amendment and alteration. It is because I think a hasty decision was taken in Committee that I put this Amendment down. The matter is one that deeply concerns a vast army of tenants all over the country. In asking for this discretionary power, I am not asking for anything that undermines the principle of the Bill. I am only asking for what the Home Secretary sought to embody in it, and I am merely assisting the Government to pass a Bill which is moderate in all its aspects, with a desire to do a minimum of harm and a maximum of good. If for any reason the Home Secretary cannot accept the Amendment, I hope he will leave it to a free vote of the House and let the House decide the question on its merits.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

The common form of lease is for seven, 14 or 21 years.

Mr. WITHERS: No.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am speaking from my own experience of some considerable property, both as owner and tenant, and I say that, at any rate, in the provinces,, the common form of lease to-day is for seven, 14 or 21 years. We ask that the tribunal should be empowered to grant the longest term. I appeal to the House to support the Amendment, which would empower the tribunal to grant a long lease, if, taking all the circumstances into consideration, they regard it as a fair and equitable thing.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I should like to say a few words, especially having regard to the appeal of the Mover to leave it to a free vote of the House. I am very loth to embark on a discussion of the merits of the question. I quite agree, that when it comes to be a question of a few years more or less there is much to be said on both sides. The reason I deprecate this and similar Amendments is that we should tend to destroy the balance of the Bill as it left the Committee. During this stage in the House I have looked upon this Bill as it left the Committee as practically a settled thing. I deprecate all Amendments wherever they come from that introduce questions settled upstairs. I do not deprecate anything that introduces new matter, new points improving the Bill that have not been dealt with or settled by the Committee, but I deprecate the idea that we should start over again in this House all the processes through which we went for three solid months in Committee upstairs in the discussion of all these points. I am under the impression that Members on all sides considered that we had come practically to a reasonable settlement, and in the interests of the Bill I think my hon. Friend's Amendment is inadvisable. I think he understands what I mean. It is simply inadvisable. I desire to see the Bill go through as a reasonable measure of justice as between landlord and tenant practically as it left the Committee upstairs.
My hon. Friend opposite (Sir W. Perring) mentioned one or two points to
which I think I must refer. He seems to think the Bill as it stands on this point would prevent the landlord and tenant from coming to an agreement as to a longer lease than 14 years. Of course, it will do nothing of the kind. There is nothing to prevent the landlord from granting to the tenant 21 or 42 years or any other period of lease they desire to agree about. One of the fundamental parts of the Bill which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary insisted upon from time to time was that the parties should be allowed to come together in all respects. As a matter of fact, when this Bill passes, what I hope will come from it and what I believe will come from it will be that it will be very little used and that landlord and tenant will come together and amicably settle these points. There is another point to which my hon. Friend referred. It was an appeal that the Bill should be left to the unfettered judgment of the House. He said that it was a matter which had been settled by something in the nature of a snap Division upstairs.

Sir W. PERRING: Accident.

Sir P. PILDITCH: Well, it is more or less the same thing—by a majority of two. What happened upstairs? I will not go into the merits of the question, but the matter was discussed for several hours. It raised a number of points, and there were a large number of Amendments on both sides with regard to it. The Home Secretary suggested 21 years. Some hon. Friends of mine and others, including the right hon. Member for Hammersmith, South (Sir W. Bull), suggested seven years. I suggested, and others suggested, 14 years, and on the first Division the proposal to have 14 years instead of 21 years was accepted by 18 to 16. But I would like to remind my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of the circumstances of that particular majority. The 18 was derived from that part of the House wherein, it is well known, the common-sense of the House generally resides—[Laughter]—without exception. The 16 was represented by 12 gentlemen who sit on the benches opposite, the Home Secretary and one estimable Member of the Liberal party, and my hon. Friends the Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring) and the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr.
Womersley), who moved and seconded this Amendment to-day. What happened after that? It became an agreed point, one of the many agreed points which resulted in the Bill as we see it to-day. Another Division was taken. The Division which passed this Bill was 23 to 11, and in that Division, among the 23 who voted for the 14 years was my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington, and my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby. We were all agreed.

Sir W. PERRING: May I correct my hon. Friend 1 If he will look at the Minutes of the meeting he will find that the voting was 18 and 16, 21 against 18 that the words stand part.

Sir P. PILDITCH: But my hon. Friend was pointing to what he called the snap Division; that was the first Division. When the matter became the substantive Motion it was carried by 23 to 11, and among those who voted for 14 years were my hon. Friends the Members for North Paddington and Grimsby.

Sir W. PERRING: As against seven years.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I do not know what it was against. It was not only against seven; it was against 21 also.

Sir W. PERRING: No.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I ask the Home Secretary to deal with the last point that my hon. Friend raised, which is to leave the matter to "the unfettered discretion of the House." What does that mean? It means the Government are asked to abdicate their position as leading the House. How many of the Members who are in the precincts of the House are in this Chamber at the present moment? One knows what happens in cases of this kind. The Government leave something to what is called the unfettered judgment of the House and Members not here troop in. They do not know what has happened; they think the Government are either luke ware, or, having left the matter to the unfettered judgment of the House, really sympathise with the Amendment which is before the House at the moment. This is just what happens when the Government leave a decision to the unfettered judgment of the House.
In the interests of the Bill and in the interests of carrying this Bill through the remaining stages until it becomes law, it will be very undesirabile that a step should be taken towards breaking down what I consider to be the general balance of the Bill, because there were many Amendments brought forward on what I may call, if you like, my side, which were not accepted by the Home Secretary and on which we gave way and in one or two cases were defeated, and there were many Amendments on the other side where the same sort of thing occurred. Generally the Bill has come from the Committee in a more or less agreed form, and I hope that it will pass substantially as it left the Standing Committee.

Mr. DALTON: I was one of those who spent three solid months upstairs in Committee listening to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and others, speaking little, listening much and drawing certain very definite conclusions. I should like to support the appeal made by the Mover of the Amendment that the Government should leave it to the unfettered discretion of the House. The proposal of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment is for the same term of years which was originally proposed, as the hon. Member who has just spoken pointed out, by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. It is true that in subsequent discussions and in subsequent votes in Committee upstairs the shorter period of 14 years was substituted for the period of 21. I think it is only reasonable to ask the Home Secretary not to put on the Government Whips against a proposal which he himself originally put before the Committee upstairs. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch), it may be the case that more of my hon. Friends are attending to their duties in this House in proportion to the numbers of our party than those of the friends of the hon. Member. It may be that many of the latter are either not here at all on Friday mornings or are, if I may euphemistically describe it, in other parts of the House, but is that a reason why Parliament should not be allowed on occasions like this to express its opinion freely on a matter of great public importance which may affect the future conditions of hundreds of thousands of tenants in this country as against their landlords?
May I came back, from what I may call the atmosphere created by the speech of the hon. Member to the discussion of the merits of the Amendment moved by hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring). The proposal simply is that the tribunal should have the discretion, not that they should be compelled, where they judge it reasonable to allow a new lease to be granted for 21 years. Very likely, if we accept this Amendment, there may be very few cases where the discretion will be exercised. We are assuming that the tribunal will consist of reasonable men who will take a sensible view of the applications that come before them. To resist this Amendment is simply to say that you are going in certain cases to fetter the discretion of the tribunal to do an act which in their judgment would be reasonable, namely, to grant a lease up to 21 years. My hon. Friends on this side and myself on more than one occasion saved the Government from the excesses of some of their own supporters in Committee. We maintain that on this Bill we were not dilatory. Although in a general way the Bill does not arouse much enthusiasm we have given it support, but on this particular Amendment it seems to us most reasonable and proper that the House should be allowed to decide by a free vote what is a very simple question, a question which does not imperil the structure of the Bill, which does not cut at the root of the Bill, although it is a question of important detail, and it is a suitable question on which the Whips should be taken off.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): In this instance, I think there is one definite reason why we should prefer the term of 14 years. The House has passed Clause 4, and there is a limit in Clause 4 of 14 years. The landlord may get out of paying compensation if he gives notice to his tenant that he is prepared to grant a lease not exceeding 14 years. It would be very inconvenient if in the next paragraph there were power given for the tenant to go to the tribunal and get a lease not exceeding 21 years. With respect to the appeal made by the hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring), that I should leave this matter
to a free vote of the House, I would point out that he has asked me to leave two questions to the free vote of the House, one the question of the change from seven years to five, and now the question of whether the term should be 14 years or 21 years. He has had his own way in one respect. I left the question of five years or seven years to the House, and I think he ought to be satisfied. He ought to realise that sometimes the Government of the day must have a will of their own, even at the risk of offending one of their most valued supporters.
With regard to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), I realise to the full the courtesy, friendliness, and co-operation which he and his colleagues gave to me in Committee, but I say, quite frankly, that I have very carefully considered this point, which was mentioned to me four days ago by the hon. Member for North Paddington, and for the reasons which I have given I have come to the conclusion that in my view, as the Minister responsible for the Bill, 14 years is the right term to insert here. It does not, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) pointed out, prevent the landlord and the tenant from agreeing to a term of 21, 35, or 42 years. It is only a question of the right of the tribunal to grant a lease not exceeding 14 years. I have formed the opinion that it is my duty to ask the House to support me in making the term 14 years.

Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) was right when he said that the Mover of the Amendment had voted for the term of 14 years; but I would point out that the Home Secretary originally supported a term of 21 years, and subsequently he voted in favour of 14 years. I could not understand at the time why he voted in that way. May I read to the House a few remarks which the Home Secretary made in supporting the term of 21 years in Committee. He said:
I have considered the matter with my advisers, both legal advisers and the other advisers of the Government in this matter, and I am prepared to accept the term of 21 years which is mentioned in the Amendment. As the Committee knows, it has been my wish all the way through to leave all these questions to the Tribunal, because I cannot help feeling the Tribunal will be the fairest body to express an opinion as to rent and the length of lease; but I realise
that some colleagues of mine on the Committee want a limitation put in, and I shall be willing to agree to this one.
He further said:
Taking all these things into consideration, I submit to the Committee that as between landlord and tenant a maximum of 21 years will be fair, leaving the length of term from one to 21 years at the discretion of the Tribunal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 21st June, 1927, cols. 421–424.]
That is all we are asking for, that it should be left to the discretion of the tribunal. If the tribunal think that some term less than 21 years would be best, they will have power to grant it, but, on the other hand, if they think the term of compensation cannot be covered in 14 years they ought to have the power to extend the term to 21 years. If the Home Secretary was of that point of view when he spoke before the Committee, I should like to know what has caused such a change of mind on his part on this particular point. Having gone into this question in Committee and having come to that point of view, after full consideration, I cannot understand how it is that the Home Secretary has turned round so quickly. There must be some other purpose behind it. I do ask that he should leave the matter to the free vote of the House, seeing that in Committee a period of 14 years was only carried by 34 votes out of 65. Therefore, the fact of its having been carried in Committee does not necessarily mean that the House should accept it. Seeing that the voting was so close, I think the Home Secretary would be well advised to let the question go to a free vote.

Mr. RYE: I hope the House will stand by the 14 years, not for the reasons stated by other speakers, but for the particular reason that on the question of the new lease to be awarded, 14 years may well be a better compensation than the tenant would get under Clause 4, if he applied for compensation. That point was taken during the Committee stage, and it was pointed out that possibly a 14 years' lease might be a more adequate and better compensation than the tenant would get in the ordinary way if he went for his compensation under Clause 4. It seems to me clear that the term should not be extended. If there be a question of a 14 years' lease being more valuable to the tenant than if he went for compensation under the pre-
ceding Clause then, in the interests of the landlord, it would be manifestly unfair to extend the lease and make it a more valuable compensation than would have been awarded under Clause 4. That is a logical reason why the 14 years should not be extended. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) mentioned that he had attended most meetings of the Committee. We had the happiness of seeing him there on a few occasions, but he was not there on a number of occasions. The views expressed by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) are sound and I hope, fortified by the considerations I have respectfully suggested, the House will decide to stand on the 14 years and not extend the period to 21 years.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I intervene in this Debate only because of an observation made by the Home Secretary. As I understand, the only substantial reason why he is not prepared to leave this matter to a free vote of the House is because of some alleged discrepancy between Clause 4 and Clause 5. That rather narrows the difficulty which he feels. I want the House to consider just what we are doing in Clause 5. Whether the tribunal be competent to exercise its functions or not is a matter which I have no doubt we shall have an opportunity of discussing. The power which is given to this tribunal is certainly the use of discretion. They are to do what in all the circumstances is reasonable, and when we pass from the question of the term of years to other terms, the Clause provides
such terms as the tribunal may determine to be proper.
Apart from the length of the lease, questions like the conditions and propriety of the new lease are left entirely to the discretion of the tribunal. There is no limitation as to their discretion in deciding the propriety of the new lease. Why should not we apply that same principle in dealing with the length of the lease? Why should the Home Secretary assume that the tribunal is going to be unreasonable in this matter? You are giving an enabling power to the tribunal. The conditions which they have to consider in dealing with that matter are these; they are stated in the beginning of the Clause:
Where the tenant alleges that, although entitled to claim compensation under the
last foregoing section, such compensation would not compensate him for the loss of goodwill he will suffer if he removes to and carries oil his trade or business in other premises, he may in lieu of claiming such compensation, at any time within the period allowed for making a claim under the said section, serve on the landlord notice requiring a new lease of the premises.
Whether that is a sound principle or not the Government have agreed that the substitution of a new lease for compensation where compensation is not satisfactory is a thing which the Bill contemplates. Surely the tribunal, in considering what they are going to give in lieu of compensation, should have unfettered discretion. It may be they will think that the case will be met by giving a lease of less than 14 years. The Bill provides that it shall not exceed 14 years. They may say that the loss of goodwill is such that an extension of two years would meet the case. Why should not the converse case arise 1 Why should not the tribunal say that the goodwill and situation and value which the tenant has built up is such that 14 years will not meet the case, and in those circumstances why should the tribunal be fettered and have to do what they believe would be an injustice. Imagine the case in which the tribunal on the evidence and the material before them considers that a 16 years' lease would be a proper compensatory period. They are precluded by this provision from doing what they themselves believe to be reasonable.
The only question which remains is whether there should be some limit on the powers of the tribunal. We cannot allow them to give a lease of 999 years, or anything like that. There must be some limit. The limit which was considered by the Government to be fair was 21 years, and we want to know why they have changed their views with regard to that. The mere fact that they have put 14 years in Clause 4 cannot be a reason why they consider 21 years to be unfair now. It is a maximum limit. We are asking the Government to allow the House to decide this matter for itself. Why should not the House be allowed to say whether it wants 14 years or 21 years. The foundations of the Government will be dissolved by matters other than decisions on this Bill. This is a Measure which cannot affect the credit of the Government if they have any credit left,
and therefore I appeal to the Government to let us say what we want. In conclusion, may I remind the Home Secretary that on the last occasion when he allowed us to have a free vote the opinion of the House was so strongly against the opinion of the Government that the Government, or at any rate the supporters of the view which was put forward, were unable to get a single vote and the proposal went through without a Division. If the right hon. Gentleman will take off the Whips now, with the exception of one or two hon. Members opposite whose views we know, I doubt very much whether the Government, or rather the view which is being expressed by the Government, would receive any more support on this occasion than it did on the last. I ask the Government why what they considered three months ago to be fair should not be considered fair to-day, and at least to show some consistency by standing by their own policy.

Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: I only desire to point out that, if this Amendment were accepted and the term of years increased, it would affect other Clauses later in the Bill which were agreed to on the understanding that the period was to be 14 years. If hon. Members will turn to Sub-section (5) of Clause 5 they will see that it lays down that a landlord may after seven years, if he requires the property for a scheme of redevelopment, give 12 months' notice to the tenant and get hold of his property for the purposes of development, paying compensation to the tenant on the value of the unexpired term of the lease. Under the Bill, the total amount he would be called upon to pay in order to get possession of his property would be the value of the unexpired lease of seven years. If you are going to alter the term from 14 to 21 years you alter the effect of this Sub-section, and the landlord will be called upon to pay for the value of the unexpired lease of 14 years instead of seven years. That is one instance where the possible acceptance of this Amendment would have an effect on other Clauses of the Bill which were agreed to on the understanding that 14 years was to be the term.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE: I regret the announcement made by the Home Secretary, but I still hope he will reconsider
it. He has bean reminded of what happened last Tuesday, when the Solicitor-General said he could not give way and allow a, free vote of the House. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary came in and with great perspicuity at once detected the feeling of the House and allowed a free vote. The result was that there was no vote at all. I hope he will allow his better judgment to rule him on this occasion also. I support the Amendment because I think it is something in the direction of security of tenure. Hon. Members in all parts of the House are in favour of security of tenure. Traders and manufacturers do not want changes. They want to know where they are for some time to come, and I do not see why it should not be the same thing in regard to owners and tenants of business premises. A tenant is much more likely to develop his business, and thus increase the national wealth, if he knows that he has a reasonable period of years before him rather than a short period. Still, it is on the question of the free vote that I appeal to the Home Secretary, and I hope that he will be able to give way again.

Mr. MacLAREN: Neither the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Bye) nor the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir M. Manningham-Buller) can allege that I neglected the work of the Standing Committee, nor was I responsible at any moment for obstructing the progress of the Bill in Committee. On more than one occasion I had to get behind the Home Secretary and threaten the Home Secretary's own supporters with what would happen to them if they impeded the progress of the Bill. My intervention now, therefore, is not to hinder the progress of the Bill at this stage, but rather to meet the arguments of the two hon. Members. It seems that they are apprehensive about giving these discretionary powers to the tribunal on the ground that to do so might enhance to some extent the compensation powers of the tenant as against the landlord. Really that is not a fair argument to use, if we are to review this Bill without bias. Surely a tenant has as much right as the landlord. What we are demanding is not something arbitrary, but merely the giving of discretionary powers to the extent of 21 years. The
argument us ad by the hon. Member for Kettering does not meet the case at all.
I am speaking fully conscious of the fact that there may be many cases—I know of cases—where a tenant, if he gets certain powers supporting his position, may be a sort of dog-in-the-manger and prevent progress in a given area, and to extend his term of years or strengthen his powers in that direction would be detrimental to general public improvements. But I have heard no unbiased argument so far to support the contention that discretionary powers should not be given to the tribunal. Indeed, the substantive arguments produced by both the hon. Members have been rather arguments that savoured of vested interests. Therefore, I hope that the Home Secretary, who knows that I am doing all that I can to assist him to get the Bill, will listen to us when we appeal to him for a free vote of the House. Already there has been an impression made by his own colleagues that they feel strongly on this question. Why should the Home Secretary not face the consequences, as he has always done in Committee, and let us have a free vote.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I thought we should have a reply from the Home Secretary to the question put to him.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is not from any lack of courtesy that I have not replied. I am allowed to speak only once on the Report stage.

Mr. ALEXANDER: But the right hon. Gentleman can always speak, a second time by leave of the House, in reply to a question specifically put as to what is the reason which has led him to change entirely his point of view since the Bill went into Committee, on the question of 14 or 21 years. The hon. Member for Kettering (Sir M. Manningham-Buller) gave clearly the reason, which the Home Secretary desired to conceal. The hon. Member quoted a subsequent provision of the Bill, Sub-section 5 of Clause 5, and he made it clear that the real reason for opposing the increase of the terms to 21 years is that a landlord may discover at the end of seven years of the lease that either by the action of the community or by the personal endeavours of the tenant the property has so far developed that it would be of very great advantage
indeed to the landlord to enter upon a scheme of re-development, not for the benefit of the tenant, but for the benefit of the landlord. Therefore, there is a fear that if the Amendment were accepted and 21 years substituted for 14, it would be possible for a landlord in those circumstances being mulcted in compensation based upon the 21 years lease instead of the 14 years. That is the real reason. Apparently the landlord interests have brought direct pressure to bear on

the Home Secretary. It would have been better if the Home Secretary had put that view plainly before the House.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With permission, I will reply in one sentence. There is not a single word of truth in the suggestion made by the hon. Member.

Question put, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 166; NOes, 83.

Division No. 321.]
AYES.
[12.51 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gower, Sir Robert
Nuttall, Ellis


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Albery, Irving James
Grant, Sir J. A.
Penny, Frederick George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atkinson, C.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pllditch, Sir Philip


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hartington, Marquess of
Power, Sir John Cecil


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remnant, Sir James


Bennett, A. J.
Hawke, John Anthony
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Berry, Sir George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynsmouth)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Rye, F. G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Salmon, Major I.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hens, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Sandon, Lord


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Savery, S. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Skelton, A. N.


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Cassels, J. D.
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smithers, Waldron


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Clarry, Reginald George
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Clayton, G. C.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lamb, J. Q.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Loder, J. de V.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Looker, Herbert William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacIntyre, Ian
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dean, Arthur Wellesle)
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dixey, A. C.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Margesson, Captain D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Merriman, F. B.
Withers, John James


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wolmer, Viscount


Fermoy, Lord
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Finburgh, S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L
Nelson, Sir Frank



Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, o. (Westminster)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Gates, Percy
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G. (Ptrsl'ld)
Major Sir George Hennessy.


Gibhs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Amnion, Charles George
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Barnes, A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Baker, Walter
Batey, Joseph


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lawrence, Susan
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lee, F.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Snell, Harry


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Day, Colonel Harry
Malone, Major P. B.
Sutton, J. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
March, S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.
Varley, Frank B.


Grundy, T. W.
Owen, Major G.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hardle, George D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Ponsonby, Arthur
Whiteley, w.


Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Riley, Ben
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Womersley, W. J.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Rose, Frank H.
Wright, W.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scrymgeour, E.



Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kennedy, T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Sir William Perring and Mr.


Lansbury, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Tinker.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye)— in page 7, to leave out from the word "proper," in line 33, to the end of line 37—is not selected by the Chair.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, after the word "award" to insert the word "such."
This is purely a verbal Amendment in order to make the Clause read better.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, after the word "compensation," to insert the words "as is provided."
This is also a verbal Amendment following on the Amendment already made.

Sir H. SLESSER: I do not think that this Amendment can be described as purely verbal, because if these words were not put in, there might be a great deal of difficulty. The Clause with these additions seems to suggest that the second sort of compensation might be given and I think that is absolutely essential.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye)—in page 7, line 41, after the word " lessee," to insert the words
(irrespective of whether the lessee intends to use the premises for the trade or business of the tenant)."—
is not selected.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, to leave out the words "is entitled to claim," and to insert instead thereof the words "would be entitled to."
This is also a verbal Amendment. The House has already inserted these words in an earlier Sub-section.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler)—in page 8, line 12, after the word "loss," to insert the words "of goodwill as ascertained under Section four"— is not selected by the Chair.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 8, line 17, after the first word "or," to insert the words "where the landlord is an individual for occupation."
The point of this Amendment is that under the Interpretation Act, a "person" includes a corporation, but a corporation cannot have a son or daughter. Accordingly, I propose that the Clause should read:
That the premises are required for occupation by himself—
which includes a corporation—
or, where the landlord is an individual, for occupation by a son or daughter, etc.

Sir H. SLESSER: While not opposing the inclusion of these words I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they are necessary. The phrase in the Interpretation Act is to the effect that
unless the context otherwise requires
a person should be deemed to include a corporation. As the right hon. Gentleman properly says, a corporation cannot have a son or daughter, and it is quite obvious that the context covers the point.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The words are not only unnecessary but they make the Clause read badly. If an ordinary layman reads this Clause as now amended he will gasp when halfway through this sentence. It is worse than the German sentences quoted by Mark Twain.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will see if we can get better words.

Mr. RYE: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment on the Paper which should come before the Amendment now being moved by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, in page 7, line 41, after the word "lessee" to insert the words
(irrespective of whether the lessee intends to use the premises for the trade or business of the tenant).

Mr. SPEAKER: I have said that that Amendment is not selected by the Chair.

Mr. RYE: I understood you, Sir, to refer to an earlier Amendment—in page 7, to leave out from the word "proper" in line 33, to the end of line 37—and also to an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler)—in page 8, line 12, after the word "loss" to insert the words "of goodwill as ascertained under Section four"—but I did not understand it to refer to my Amendment in line 41.

Mr. SPEAKER: I referred to both the hon. Member's Amendments—one in line 33, and one in line 41.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. RYE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 17, after the second word "by," to insert the words "his wife or by."
I move this Amendment because it appears to me, not unreasonable to make this provision apply to a wife as well as to a son or daughter. If hon. Members refer to the Sub-section they will see that if the landlord proves that the premises are required for occupation by himself or by a son or daughter over 18 years of age, then, the tribunal, under an earlier Clause, will be precluded from making an order for a new lease. I suggest that in these days it is unreasonable
to draw a distinction between a wife and a daughter in a matter of this kind. If it be a good reason for withholding a new lease that a son or daughter wish to occupy the premises I cannot see why the same provision should not also apply in the case of a wife who desires to carry on business. It is not infrequently the case nowadays that wives, rather than stay at home, engage in business and we find, particularly in the West End, many wives engaged in business as costumiers or dealers in antique furniture, If a landlord's wife bonâ fide decides to enter upon trading and requires to use the premises for that purpose, I can see no valid reason why that case should not be brought within the Clause. You allow it to the son and the daughter, but for some reason, some prejudice on the part of the right hon. Gentleman presumably, he does not like wives.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not like other people's wives.

Mr. RYE: The right hon. Gentleman makes a statement which was obvious to the House. I suggest that the Amendment should have the consideration of the House.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir H. SLESSER: I wish to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to accept this Amendment, which seems to me to be both an absurd and a very dangerous Amendment. Normally, as the hon. Member must know, a wife occupies the same house as her husband. I know we live in days when there is a certain amount of infidelity, but normally, speaking for myself—I consider myself normal in this matter—a wife lives with her husband, and they are normally in the same occupation. Therefore, the only possible use which could be made of this proposal is that a husband could get out of the obligations which a tribunal might impose upon him by giving an extended lease and handing over his premises to his wife. This is not the first occasion on which husbands have found their wives useful, to evade paying their debts, for example, and I can see in this Amendment a very useful way by which dishonest people could transfer premises into the names of their wives and thus evade the operation of the Clause. A son or a daughter is in a
different position. The son would be carrying on a business as an independent adult person, and though I believe we opposed even that limitation, at any rate a son is normally a separate person to carry on a business, but when you are dealing with a wife, who carries on a business, if at all, normally in company with her husband, the Amendment has the effect—I will not say it was intended; I do not know, but certainly it has the effect—of very much curtailing the power of the tribunal to grant a new lease, and it is an obstructive Amendment, in that it limits the functions and powers of the tribunal and the Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give it short shrift.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not propose to ask the House to accept this Amendment, which is quite unnecessary. We have met the case of the man who wants the premises for his own occupation or who wants to start a son or daughter in business, but my hon. Friend wants to bring in the case of a -wife also. I see no reason why he should not next week want to bring in a maiden aunt, or a second cousin, or a third cousin once or twice removed. There must be a limit somewhere, and I think the limit has been reached, for, after all, this is in derogation of the rights of the tenant. To whomsoever we give this privilege, it is something taken from the tenant, and I hope the House will reject this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 8, line 24, to leave out paragraph (iv).
This will lessen a little the length of the Bill. Under paragraph (iv), where the landlord is a Government Department or a local or public authority, the tenant may not get a new lease, but under an Amendment inserted in Committee in Clause 4 (1, f), it is provided that if a Government Department or a local authority wants the premises for their own purposes, there shall be no compensation, and if there is no compensation under Clause 4, there can be no need for this paragraph here.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. RYE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 35, at the end, to insert the words:
(vi) That he has entered into a conditional contract to let the premises for any purpose other than the trade or business of the tenant and has offered the tenant the grant of a new tenancy at the rent named in such contract for such period and on similar terms for a period of not less than fourteen years and the tenant has refused to accept such new tenancy.
This really arises out of a point that was taken by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir M. Manningham-Buller) during the Committee stage. He pointed out that a landlord would be in a difficulty, because he would never know how he stood before the end of the term, as regarded letting to another tenant. He said correctly that it is frequently the custom for an intending tenant to come to a landlord before a lease runs out and say, " When you get possession of those premises, will you let them to me and, if so, on what terms?" Without such an Amendment as this, the landlord would be powerless to do anything, but, with it, it would be open to him to enter into a conditional contract and to say to the intending tenant, "I will make a bargain with you, but it is conditional upon the tribunal not awarding a new lease to the sitting tenant. I am prepared to deal with the sitting tenant if the tribunal tells me I am to do so, but otherwise I am prepared to enter into a contract which would at once become binding if the tribunal refused to grant an order in favour of the sitting tenant." Having done that, the landlord could, and should, according to the terms of my Amendment, forthwith notify the tenant of the terms on which the premises had been conditionally let, and ask him whether he would like to take a new lease on the same terms. The tenant would then have his opportunity and, if he refused to take it, it would not be reasonable for him to come forward later and claim the lease. It would, on the other hand, be reasonable for the landlord to say that that was one of the reasons to be included in Sub-section (3) to justify the tribunal in refusing to order the grant of a new lease.
I may be told by hon. Members opposite, some of whom are under the impression that there never has been and never will be a good landlord in the world and that all landlords are unscrupulous, that an Amendment like this would result in the unscrupulous landlord, in order to avoid his liability
to grant a new lease via the tribunal, putting up someone to enter into a conditional contract with him at a big rent, and then going to the tenant and in effect blackmailing him into taking a new lease at a higher rent. I shall be told that, but I do not believe it will be so. I have had a great deal to do both with landlords and tenants, and I do not believe there is a large number either of unscrupulous landlords or of unscrupulous tenants, but I think an Amendment such as this is necessary, so as to give a landlord some chance of dealing with his property. Otherwise, it might be that though six months before the end of the term, he received an advantageous offer to take the property, he could not take advantage of that offer until after the tribunal had made its award.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): There being no Seconder, the Amendment falls to the ground.

Mr. RYE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, after the word "fails," to insert the words "except in circumstances beyond his control."
If hon. Members will refer to the Clause, they will see that there is a proviso
that if the grant of a new lease is refused by the tribunal on any such ground as is mentioned in paragraph (b),the tribunal may make it a condition of refusal that if the landlord fails to carry out his intention within such period as may be allowed by the tribunal, the landlord shall pay to the tenant such compensation as the tribunal may fix not exceeding the amount of the loss which the tenant has suffered by reason of having been deprived of his right to the grant of a new lease under this Section.
That, I may respectfully say, is a very reasonable and proper decision. If the landlord has wilfully deceived the tribunal, and so prevented the tenant from getting a new lease, he, obviously, should be penalised in this way, but it might be that the circumstances were beyond the landlord's control and so result in his not carrying out his intention as set out in paragraph (b). For instance, he might have represented that he wanted the premises for a son or daughter, and it might be that the tribunal had refused on that ground to make an order for a new lease, and some little time after, before taking
occupation, the son or daughter died. In that case, obviously, it would have been beyond the control of the landlord, and he would not in any way have deceived the tribunal. It might be that, he might turn round and say to the tenant, "Now that my son (or daughter) is dead, the premises are available for you, and you may have possession," but the tenant might then say in reply, "I have taken new premises, and am entitled by virtue of the proviso to call upon you for payment of compensation." I think such a contingency should be guarded against, and I venture to hope that on this occasion, at least, the Home Secretary may see his way to accept my Amendment.

Mr. GATES: I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems to me a very reasonable Amendment. There might be all sorts of circumstances putting it beyond the control of the landlord to carry out his intention.

Sir H. SLESSER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will harden his heart against this Amendment. I do not think it has been made absolutely clear that this proviso is dealing with what itself is a limitation on the right of the tribunal to grant the lease. That is to say, if the landlord proves certain things which are set out in paragraphs (3b i. to v.), then the right to grant a new lease will be proportionately affected. The Clause is quite right. It does not matter for what reason the landlord fails to carry out his intention, if the intention of the landlord, which was the ground on which the tribunal refused the tenant his rights, is not fulfilled in fact. Surely the tenant should not be left without a remedy, and when the hon. Member moves his Amendment to insert the words "except in circumstances beyond his control," really has he considered what that really means when a Court is asked to say what is and what is not beyond the landlord's control? Does he mean the intervention of what lawyers call an act of God? Does he mean something of that sort, or that some third party has intervened?

Mr. RYE: It might be something in the shape of an interim injunction to restrain the demolition of premises.

Sir H. SLESSER: That is only adding one more to the intentions that the tribunal might have the right to consider. The hon. Member has provided me with another argument. It seems that the difficulties accumulate as the hon. Member applies himself to this problem. The fact of the matter is that the landlord has told the tribunal of certain events being about to occur, such as a son or daughter requiring the premises for occupation. The tribunal, believing that these events are about to occur, to that extent limits the tenant's right. Then the event does not occur. Surely the tenant is entitled then to be protected, and put back into the position, in which he would have been had the event which the landlord alleged was about to occur never occurred at all. According to the hon. Member's argument, what would happen is that it would only be where the tenant could prove, as I understand it, that the landlord had deliberately deceived the Court—

Mr. RYE: The tribunal.

Sir H. SLESSER: I do not see why we need waste time discussing whether it is a court or tribunal, if that is the way the hon. Member is treating this Measure. Let us call it a tribunal if the hon. Member pleases. What I am pointing out is that the hon. Member says, notwithstanding the landlord has said that certain conditions will occur, and the tribunal has acted on the assumption that those conditions will occur, unless the tenant can show that the landlord has deliberately deceived the tribunal, he is to be without a remedy. That is the effect of the Amendment as I understand it, and I hope the Home Secretary will refuse this Amendment, as he has refused several other Amendments of this kind.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and learned Member has put my case so admirably that there is no necessity for me to say anything more. The point is perfectly clear, and my view is perfectly clear. There are certain reasons which enable the landlord to get out of his obligation, such as requiring the premises for a son or daughter. In the event of that contingency not taking place, it is not the tenant's fault. The landlord says, "I am going to demolish," and then circumstances arise over which he has no control—perhaps his banking account has run out—and the premises are not going
to be demolished. Then the tenant is entitled to his compensation. It is not for the tenant to get an arbitrary sum, but merely that in certain circumstances, decided by Act of Parliament, the tenant is entitled to go to the tribunal for compensation or a new lease. I hope in the circumstances my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I very much regret that two years ago the Minister of Health did not hold the same views as those now expressed by the Home Secretary. I would add one further argument against the proposal of the hon. Member who sits for Loughborough (Mr. Rye), and who represents Westminster. If his suggestion were carried out, a delightful domestic situation would arise. Under paragraph (3b i.) if
the premises are required for occupation by himself or by a son or daughter
the tenant cannot get a new lease. Then the daughter marries and immediately a question arises, because she does not want to carry on business on the premises. The case falls to the ground, "but," says the parent before the tribunal, "he married without my consent, and it was a matter beyond my control." If she had married with the parents' consent, the tenant would get compensation. If the landlord can prove that she married without the parental consent, he would once more be saved, and the tenant would be deprived of his opportunity. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Lough borough would not wish to sow these seeds of domestic discord.

Mr. LOOKER: I do not quite agree with the wording of this Amendment, but I think there is something in what the hon. Member has in mind, although I am not quite sure that this is the right way to meet it. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary if there is any provision in the Bill enabling the tribunal to extend the period originally fixed. If any extension of time is desired in unforeseen conditions, there ought to be power to extend it vested in the tribunal. I am concerned with the possibilities of what might happen under paragraphs (3b ii. and iii.) which cover cases of pulling down or remodelling the premises.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 21 he will find
"Where in any proceedings under this Act the tribunal has fixed or allowed any period for the doing of any Act or thing the tribunal may … extend that period."

Mr. LOOKER: Thank you; that meets my point.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: As I understand the Bill, if a new lease be not granted by the tribunal for any of these reasons compensation will be given under Clause 4. Is this Amendment to provide that where one of these conditions, in the event of the granting of a new lease, is not being fulfilled, the tenant is to go back and have a new lease or is he only to have damages for not having a new lease? Under this Clause as it stands, there will be great expense and great difficulty in the tribunal carrying out the Bill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Where the tenant goes out of the premises because the landlord said he was going to demolish, and the landlord does not demolish in the time fixed by the tribunal, it would be impossible, the tenant meanwhile having gone somewhere else, to order a continuation of the lease. Therefore, it is provided in that case, when the landlord has played false with the tribunal—not wilfully—and has been unable to carry out the reason for not granting the new lease, and the new lease is impossible because the tenant has gone, that compensation can be given.

Mr. HARDIE: Time was spent upstairs and there was some obstruction—

Sir P. PILDITCH: Who obstructed it upstairs?

Mr. HARDIE: Every move made by this group upstairs was to make the working of the Bill more and more difficult. This Amendment about "circumstances beyond his control" seems to show that in the minds of those who supported it the tribunal is not to be given credit for being able to assess the facts brought before them for consideration. This is simply another effort to try and so get the Bill arranged that the tribunal shall be operated by the landlord's power rather than by a fair power as between landlord and tenant.

Amendment negatived.

Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLER: I beg to move, in page 9, line 4, after the word "proves," to insert the words "to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal."

Sir P. PILDITCH: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am prepared to accept it.

Sir H. SLESSER: This is a great deal more than a drafting Amendment, and we ought to have some explanation. I rather demur at the rather slovenly way in which we are dealing with this matter. To prove "to the reasonable satisfaction" is one thing; to prove "to the satisfaction 'is another, and I want to know why these words" reasonable satisfaction" are inserted. The tribunal has always got to be satisfied, and I do not understand the insertion of the word "reasonable." I should like to know from the Home Secretary why it is accepted.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry if I appeared discourteous in accepting the Amendment without giving fuller reasons, but I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was anxious to get on.

Sir H. SLESSER: I did not suggest any discourtesy.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The words "Where the landlord proves" might be held to mean a definite actual proof that a certain thing would happen. The landlord might well go to the tribunal and say, "I have a daughter who is going to get married, and I want to set her up in business in these premises." A man can prove that to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal, but to say he shall prove it by calling the daughter and the son-in-law and anybody else to prove definitely that the marriage will take place is not quite so easy. Take the question of demolition. If the tribunal is reasonably satisfied that a new street going through, then, although the local authority may not actually have got the consent of the Minister of Health to the spending of the money or anything of that kind, and that the demolition will take effect, proof to their satisfaction is sufficient.

Mr. DALTON: I am very glad the Home Secretary has given us that ex-
planation. We on this side have got into the habit of looking rather critically upon Amendments which the Government accept from certain hon. Members who were prominent in the discussions in Committee, and after what the Home Secretary has said I am inclined to be still more suspicious of this particular Amendment. I cannot see why the tribunal should not be required to receive a proper and complete evidence before exempting a landlord from the liabilities and obligations of this Bill, and, as my hon. and learned Friend he Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has pointed out, these words being somewhat uncertain from the legal point of view, we might be introducing a very lax standard of reasonable proof. We hope, and we believe, it is likely to be the case that the tribunal will consist of sensible people, who will handle these matters in a sensible way, but we must take proper precautions against the setting up of lax standards of evidence. In the hypothetical case stated by the Home Secretary I see no reason why proper evidence on oath should not be submitted to the tribunal if they decide that it is required, and, therefore, I say on behalf of my hon. Friends that we must oppose this Amendment.

Mr. WITHERS: I venture to suggest that you cannot prove future occurrences. For example, you cannot prove there is going to be an eclipse of the sun so many years hence. You can say that according to all reasonable knowledge it will occur, but you cannot prove it.

Mr. MACLAREN: If the Home Secretary is intent upon this Amendment, I think the difficulty might be got over by the omission of the word "reasonable," making it read:
to the satisfaction of the tribunal.
I think that would be more logical.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member makes the omission of the word "reasonable" the point of his objection, I am sure it would meet the views of my hon. Friends if the Amendment were moved with that word omitted. I could accept it in that form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 9, line 4, after the word "proves," insert the words "to the satisfaction of the tribunal." — [Sir M. Manningliam-Buller.]

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir P. PILDITCH: In "Page 9, line 17, to leave out the words 'grant of the lease,' and to insert instead thereof the words 'commencement of the term thereof.'"

Sir P. PILDITCH: This is one of several Amendments which I had intended to move, but, having had an intimation from the Home Secretary that he will accept a definition of the predecessor in title at a later stage of the Bill, I do not propose to move it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 9, line 17, to leave out the words "grant of the lease," and to insert instead thereof the words " commencement of the term thereof."
I think it is really desirable that we should insert these words. The phrase "grant of a lease" is not one which is known at law, and in the interests of strict accuracy the words "commencement of the term" would be better. As my hon. Friend seems a little backward about moving his Amendment, I will adopt it and move it myself.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 9, line 41, to leave out the words "at such price," and to insert instead thereof the words "for such consideration."
This Amendment is moved to fulfil an undertaking which I gave in Committee in response to a speech by, I think, the hon. Member for Burslem(Mr. MacLaren). I think the Amendment is a desirable one from the point of view of both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord may prefer to receive instead of a lump sum an annual sum in the nature of rent, and, equally, the tenant may prefer to give some consideration in place of paying an actual price. I think it gives a little wider scope.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 9, line 44, after the word "adequate," to insert the words:
and the consideration may as to the whole or any part thereof if the tribunal so deter-
mines be in the form of a terminable rent charge for such amount and of such duration not exceeding the duration of the landlord's interest as the tribunal may fix.
The effect of this Amendment is to enable the tribunal, if it so desires, to order the payment to be made in the form of a terminable annuity. If the landlord is unable to provide cash he may, if the tribunal thinks fit, make a
terminable rent charge for such amount and of such duration not exceeding the duration of the landlord's interest as the tribunal may fix.

I think that is reasonable.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 10, line 34, to leave out Sub-section (11), and to insert instead thereof the words:
(11) Where the term for which in the opinion of the tribunal a new lease should be ordered to be granted would extend beyond the termination of the lease held by the immediate landlord, the power of the tribunal under this Section to order the grant of a new lease shall include power to order the grant of such lease and reversionary leases that the combined effect thereof will be equivalent to the grant of a new lease for such term as aforesaid.
Provided that every such lease and reversionary lease shall be so framed as to confer on the landlord granting the lease the same rights of distress as he would have enjoyed had he retained a reversion expectant on the termination thereof.
This Amendment proposes first to leave out Sub-section (11), which says:
Where the term of the new lease ordered to be granted by the tribunal will extend beyond the termination of the lease held by the immediate landlord, 'or any superior landlord, the order shall provide for the surrender of any such lease, so far as it relates to the premises comprised in the new lease to be granted to the tenant, on such terms as the tribunal may consider just.
In place of that Sub-section it will be better, I think, from every point of view to insert a new Sub-section in the terms set out in the Amendment. This is a very difficult and complicated question. Under Sub-section 11 as it stands we try to provide for the surrender of an existing lease where the landlord himself has only a short term remaining and the tribunal wants to grant a lease of, say, 14 years to the tenant in respect of the goodwill. We first came to the conclusion that
they had better arrange for the compulsory surrender of the short lease and let the superior landlord grant one for a longer term, but after full consideration with my legal advisers we have come to the conclusion that it would be better to let the immediate landlord grant such a lease as he has power to grant and then let the superior landlord grant a reversionary lease- Reversionary leases are well known to the law, and there would be no difficulty. Each landlord will then have his rights undisturbed. The first landlord will have his rights as to distress for the remainder of the lease, say three years, while he is landlord, and then the reversionary landlord, coming in under the provisions of the reversionary lease, will be the landlord direct with all rights against the tenant for the recovery of rent, for distress and other obligations of the term of the lease as if the lease had been one to take effect immediately. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will consider that this improves the Bill.

Sir H. SLESSER: The Home Secretary has asked for my opinion, and I am glad to say that I agree with his view on this point. I was rather concerned with the notion of the tribunal having to deal with the surrender of the lease in its original form, and the incidence of the lease appeared to me to be left in the air. What is now proposed secures that there will be less disturbance of the continuity of general leases. I know there are some new ideas contained in this Bill, but by this Amendment the continuity of the existing common law is less broken than by the provisions contained in the Bill. For these reasons I hope the House will accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(Right of landlord to offer alternative accommodation.)

The following Amendment Hood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir G. HOHLER:

In page 11, line 19, to leave out the words "of his business" and to insert instead thereof the words
to which he may be entitled under Section four.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: (Mr. James Hope): This Amendment has not been
marked for selection. I call upon the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) to move his next Amendment.

CLAUSE 7.—(Rights of mesne landlords.)

Sir G. HOHLER: I beg to move, in page 11, line 26, after the word "compensation," to insert the words "for any improvement."

The object of this Amendment is to secure that the landlord, that is, the superior landlord, who may ultimately have to pay, should have notice of the improvement intended to be made. Unless the landlord gets such a notice he has no power to appear before the tribunal, and an Order may be made behind his back. I think that is an injustice, and this Amendment will secure that the landlord will have proper notice.

Amendment not seconded.

CLAUSE 11.—(Application of 13 & 14 Geo. 5. c. 9. s. 20.)

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 12, line 42, at the end, to insert the words:
including any costs, charges, or expenses incurred by a landlord in opposing any proposal by a tenant to execute an improvement, or in contesting a claim for compensation.
Section 20 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, gives certain powers relating to charges in respect of money paid for compensation, and it is sought by this Clause to apply those powers to the case of money paid for compensation under this Act. A landlord may be a tenant for life and if he opposes a claim for compensation he may incur a considerable amount in the shape of law costs. He may not be able to get those costs from the tenant, but even then I think it is only right that he should be able to include them as against his own estate. This Amendment does not affect the tenant, and I think there is a good deal to be said for it. In this case the costs will be paid out of the capital money, and there will be no loss or obligation upon the tenant.

Mr. WITHERS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "any," to insert the word "proper."
I suggest to the Home Secretary that it will be better to follow the ordinary wording.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

Clause 16.—(Holdings to which Part I applies.)

Mr. WELLOCK: I beg to move, in page 15, line 19, to leave out paragraph (a).
This is particularly in the interests of the professional class. We on these benches do not see why this very large class should be removed from the advantages of this Bill. Perhaps it may be that they are having to suffer for the position of splendid isolation that they have occupied up to the present time, but, if we inquire into the circumstances of the situation, we see how absurd this condition is. Take, for example, the case of a property on which there are, say, three sets of premises standing adjacent to one another, where you have a stationer's shop, next door a solicitor, and then a typewriting business. A man goes into the first shop and buys one or two forms, on which he may make out a will. He goes into the next premises, and gets made out by the solicitor his last will and testament; and then he goes into the third premises and gets this statement duplicated. He pays for the service on each occasion; there is the same sort of business transaction in each case.
Then suppose that each of these three businesses, after a number of years, prospers in its own way, and that at the back of the premises there is opportunity for extension in the form of a huge yard. The first man, by reason of his persistency and skill, requires further premises for his enlarged business, to accommodate his stock and so forth. The solicitor next door, by virtue of his power to improve his professional business, also requires to departmentalise, and he also develops his premises in the yard behind; and the same occurs in regard to the third business. When it comes to compensation under this Bill, the first and the third of these three
persons is able to gain compensation, but the person occupying the middle premises is not able to do so. Just because there is a technical difference between what is called a profession and what is called a business, persons belonging to the professional class are not able to claim compensation. We think that that is very unfair. Furthermore, there is the point that there is something in location in regard to the professions. A man may make certain improvements, and the landlord, when the lease terminates, may be able to get into the premises another person of the same profession. Solicitors, and more particularly doctors, have come together in certain areas in almost every town, and it is possible for a landlord to turn out one man and bring in another, and thus gain the advantage of any improvements that have been made. It is for these reasons that I move this Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to second the Amendment.
In the claims made by those coming under this Measure, there are various sections in which difficulties are bound to arise. The difficulties of trying to segregate different professions or businesses in one building will be obvious to all. Although this Bill does not deal with rates or local taxation, we have to realise, in considering this Clause, the difference between various forms of expenditure. The business man who is selling over the counter has, in most cases, longer hours than the man upstairs in what is called a professional line. The Bill, as I have said, does not deal with that, but we are bound to take into consideration all the circumstances. Leaving these aside, and dealing with the Clause as it stand's, there is no reason why, since the Bill is dealing with business tenants, any part of the business carried on in any building should be excluded. The question of the power to extend business premises behind a frontage is one that will, under this Bill, come under the purview of the tribunal, but, when that is before the tribunal, the whole extension will be based upon lease and rents. Paragraph (a) says that premises shall not be deemed to be used for carrying on a trade or business
by reason of their being used for the purpose of carrying on thereat any profession.
2.0 p. m.
It is even more difficult to-day than it used to be to distinguish between businesses and professions. We have, for instance, the consulting engineer, who is considered to be in a profession distinct from the engineer downstairs, who may be making apparatus at the back of the premises and selling it in the front. It is no use our accepting a Clause lightly, because I think all of us in this House are trying to do our best to see that whatever Measures pass through the House shall fall with as equal justice as possible on all classes.
This is a question of distinguishing between the professional man and the business man—what is called the practical man, because that is the only other word in English of which I know that conveys what is in my mind—the practical man ' downstairs making articles behind his shop and bringing them into the shop in order to sell them. He is included in this Bill as not being professional. It would seem to me that, unless we have some very distinct definition of what is professional and what is not professional, it is not going to be possible in this Bill to get a sense of justice to apply right through these divisions. The condition laid down in paragraph (b) is:
by reason that the tenant thereof carries on the business of sub-letting the premises as residential flats,
and so on. Is that going to be called a profession? We are bound to get to know whether the sub-letting of flats is going to be included in the word "profession." The further words of paragraph (b) are:
whether or not the provision of meals or any other service for the occupants of the flats is undertaken by the tenant.
The House will see how complicated the whole thing becomes, and that is the reason why we ask that paragraph (a) should be left out. Upstairs in Committee, when this matter was being fully discussed, nothing was said from the Government side that gave the slightest indication that they could clear the matter up. The phrase:
by reason of their being used for the purpose of carrying on thereat any profession
is a most vague accumulation of words. I have tried my best to get to know what could be implied, in a case coming before the tribunal, by these two lines, and I cannot grasp it; unless we are going to have a special Section defining what a profession is, I cannot see how it is going to be applied.
The position of a professional man is quite different from the position of what is called an ordinary business man. The whole tendency of debate in Committee and here has been to show that what is in people's minds is that a business man is someone who has a shop and is selling something; that has been the whole idea so far as I can make out. We have not had any definition of what a professional man is, and there is no definition here. I see every day, as I pass through London, premises where several distinct things are being done. There is a man on the ground floor, and his window contains what this Bill would call the business premises on that ground floor; but when you pass in beyond the ground floor you come to an office where you find a professional designation engraved on the door-plate, and in there you will find something altogether different from what we accept as the definition of the business man to whom this Bill relates. When you pass further on, you come to another door where another designation of a professional man is given. How can you possibly deal with that state of circumstances? The only one way of dealing with it is to delete, as we ask, that part which seems to mix up the whole of this Clause 16. If we are going to take the relations between the business man's and professional man's claim to the tribunal, what is going to be before the tribunal? All the other parts of the Bill deal with what is called the business man, and you have nothing at all to relate (a) under Clause 16, to the other parts of the Bill. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to comply with this request and make the Bill even better than it is.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. It was discussed at very great length in Committee, and we came to a compromise that the professional man should have compensation for improvements, but, for the present at all events, we would not seek to overload the Bill by intro-
ducing the principle of compensation for goodwill. There is quite a distinct difference between the goodwill of a doctor and the goodwill of an ordinary tradesman. We are introducing a new principle into English law, the principle of compensation for goodwill. The principle of compensation for improvements has long been accepted under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and it is now in operation throughout every landed estate in the country. It was agreed in Committee that the professional man should have compensation for improvements. When we come to an entirely new principle which has not yet been extended beyond the ordinary business tenure, there is of course the claim for its extension to the professional man, and there is or may be a claim for its extension to agriculture, but for the moment I say frankly that this is a new idea in English law, and I want to see how it works and whether it is successful.
We may say the time of a Parliament is short in the history of a nation, and this Act of Parliament, if we pass it, will, we hope, run for years, perhaps centuries,, providing compensation to a business tenant who has been compelled to give up his business, and whose goodwill inures to the landlord. In a very few years' time we shall see the working of this Measure. We shall see whether there is much litigation. We shall probably find in the course of a few years that one or two test cases will settle many difficult points which, with all our industry in Committee, we were not able to notice and which we have not been able to include in definite and precise language in the provisions of the Bill. It is possible that after a few years, when those test cases have taken place, it may be necessary to pass an amending Bill. It would be very much better to see how the Act runs and see whether it is a success and after a few years' experience it will be time to consider the introduction of a further Bill extending it to different classes of society. The whole matter was very fully considered in Committee and we agreed, as a compromise, to extend compensation for improvements to professional men, and the Amendment for compensation for goodwill was withdrawn with the full consent of the Committee. The settlement was accepted unanimously. I ask the House to support the Committee, and
then in a few years it will be time enough to see whether this is a success and whether it is desirable to carry it further.

Mr. DALTON: I had the feeling, while the Home Secretary was speaking, that in his heart he was sympathetic to the Amendment and would not have been sorry to accept it, but for various reasons did not feel able to go quite so far. An appeal has been made before to-day unsuccessfully, and was made successfully yesterday, to leave certain questions which might be described as being on the border-line between different groups of thought to a free vote of the House. Is there any reason why we should not have a free vote on this Amendment? The question was discussed at considerable length in Committee, but hon. Members opposite who are opposed root and branch to the Bill—whether they will have the pluck to vote against its Third Reading remains to be seen—have not felt bound by any compromise reached in Committee by any general understanding to abstain from reintroducing proposals which, if accepted, would kill the Bill. In view of that situation, I suggest that we might be allowed to leave this Amendment to a free vote of the House and see what the judgment of the House upon it may be. In support of the Amendment on merits, the chief point I desire to submit is that although it is true that originally the professional man was wholly excluded from the benefits of the Bill, and is now partially admitted in respect of compensation for improvement, though not for goodwill, yet the professional man under this arrangement is getting a good deal less than half of what he is, in my judgment, reasonably entitled to.
The professional man—dentist, doctor or solicitor—does not as a rule make large structural improvements to his place of business, and his claim is much more a claim for the goodwill that he creates by his skill, and, if he were to be given the choice, if he were told he could only have one of two things, if he were entitled to have the choice between being brought in to participate in the right to compensation for improvements, on the one hand, or the right to compensation for goodwill on the other, I have no doubt that he would choose the latter. It is the latter which this Amendment
proposes to give him. I have, as I dare say other hon. Members have had, a large number of letters. On this one point, I have had as many as on any other—the question of the professional man who feels unfairly treated in comparison with the tenant in the narrower sense as defined by the Bill. I feel on merits that the professional man has a very strong case indeed to be included, and should be allowed to retain to himself some part of the goodwill which he has created and which, if he be not allowed to retain it, will simply pass into the greedy maw of the landlord, who has done nothing to entitle him to it. I hope that the Home Secretary will not put on the Government. Whips, but will allow us to vote according to our convictions and our view of the merits.

Sir P. PILDITCH: It must have been rather a broad borderline the hon. Member had in his mind when he referred to this being on the borderline of our discussions upstairs. My recollection is that it was one of the biggest issues that was raised in Committee

Mr. DALTON: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me. I meant on the borderline of decision in the sense that opinion was rather equally divided.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I cannot even go quite so far as that. As a matter of fact, as I recollect the matter, it was recognised as being a very important question of principle whether the Bill was going to be extended so as to cover more than the class of cases which had always been argued on Second Reading and in Committee upstairs, namely, the business people, the retail trader. No one thought that the retail trader or the wholesale trader was not to come within the provisions of this Bill, but to embark upon the whole question as to whether this Bill is to be extended to residential properties, as all these properties are that will be occupied by professional people, is, I think, quite another thing. I think it was the view taken upstairs, and it is the view taken now, that cases in which the professional man possesses a goodwill of the kind which is compen-satable under this Bill, that is to say, the goodwill which remains an appurtenance to the premises and which may increase the value of the premises to the
advantage of the landlord, must be very few indeed. I am a member of a profession myself, and it is inconceivable that I should want to take my present office to another place, however far that might be. I could not carry the whole thing with me, and that is what? think is general.
The hon. Member said that the compromise come to in Committee was one which did not do justice to the professional man. He agrees that there was a compromise, as undoubtedly there was. We all agreed finally, having admitted the right of compensation for improvements by professional men, that that was as far as the Bill should be stretched. Who were the professional men that we had in mind at that time? They were principally the doctors and the dentist. They were thought to be the men who really might be given facilities for obtaining the consent of the tribunal for putting up such a building as a garage. There was no reason why such facilities should not be given. Exactly for the same reason as I opposed the Amendment of my hon. Friend opposite just now, namely, that it goes right away from the general aim and intention of the Bill as it left the Committee upstairs, I shall oppose this Amendment. I shall oppose any other Amendment of the same kind from whichever quarter of the House it may come. I am very pleased to hear that on this and other points the Home Secretary means to stick to the Bill as it left the Committee, and I shall gladly support him.

Mr. STEPHEN: I desire to ask the Home Secretary to reconsider this matter with regard to allowing the question at issue to be decided by a free vote of the House. After all, it would appear to me that on a matter like this, in a House in which the Conservative party is in such a great majority, the Members' opinion with regard to the merits of the case might be the deciding factor in the matter. It seems to me that the Home Secretary is obviously in sympathy with the Amendment, but, as a Minister having to face the responsibility of putting the Measure through the House, he is inclined to treat it as a matter which, for the sake of getting his Bill, he is prepared to let go. He states that there is a new principle being introduced here in
the law of this country. It is a principle which is being introduced only in favour of a certain section, and his argument is that if it is successful with regard to that section for which provision is made, then there would be an opportunity for further amendment, and others who would have an equally good claim considering the merits of the case could be included later on. The Home Secretary knows as well as anybody how difficult it is to get an amending Measure through this House. It would be difficult for the professional classes to get the same right extended to them as is being extended to the business section by this Measure. It might take an agitation lasting over months. There are the interests that are opposed to this measure of justice to' the people, and it would take ever so long to get amending legislation.
I would like to give this illustration of the difficulty. There is the business section in my own country of Scotland who are in the same position as the business section in England. The business section in Scotland are in precisely the same position in this matter with regard to improvements and goodwill in connection with their businesses as the people are here in England. But the Secretary of State for Scotland, in spite of the fact that representatives and prominent members of his own party are pressing for a similar Measure for Scotland, absolutely turns a deaf ear to all the requests that are made. The Home Secretary looks rather incredulously at me when I say that, but I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in this House whether there is any proposal to introduce similar legislation in Scotland, and he said, "No"—and he is aware of the volume of agitation which is in favour of it. To-day I have received a letter from a big retail merchants' organisation asking for similar legislation for Scotland and urging me to support the Bill for England, and yet there is no disposition on the part of the Secretary of State for Scotland to grant us such legislation.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was not looking at the hon. Member incredulously. I did not wish to show by my looks that he was saying something that
was not correct. He wishes to attack my Bill because he cannot get a Bill for Scotland.

Mr. STEPHEN: I most certainly object to the Home Secretary's statement that I want to impede the passage of his Bill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It was quite a friendly remark.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am not anxious to take up very much time in hindering the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. I am very anxious to see the Bill, limited as it is, on the Statute Book as a partial measure of justice to these people. At the same time, I would like the Home Secretary, in view of the great difficulty of getting such legislation through this House, to allow a free vote in a House with over 400 Conservatives to decide on the merits of the case in regard to these professional people. The last speaker referred to the dentists and the doctors as a case in point that has been discussed in Committee. He would not say for a minute, although he is a professional man himself, that he could shift his business say 10 miles out and that his clients are so overjoyed at having him to look after their interests that they would follow him. He would not say that of a dentist in a busy thoroughfare who had to shift from that busy thoroughfare and was not able to get into premises within 300 or 400 yards. The thing is absolutely preposterous, and no one knows it better than the hon. Member who preceded me in this discussion. Anyhow, if there be any real argument for this limitation surely, in a House of over 400 Conservatives so many of them interested in the protection of landlordism, there is no danger in leaving the matter to a free vote.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: It seems to me that the arguments advanced from the Government side are really in favour of this Amendment. The Home Secretary argues that this might introduce vast changes and that the magnitude of the financial compensation is so great that it is dangerous to move before we have had experience. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch), who, despite the Home Secretary's reminder to his party on Second Reading that we are not now in the eighteenth century, seems to be back in the fifteenth century, says that it is inconceivable that in the case of professional men like himself, however far they may remove from their existing premises, they would take the goodwill with them. The arguments from the benches opposite against the Amendment seem to be mutually destructive. It must not be understood, as it seems to be understood by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, that because the Government have introduced this Bill, which we are glad to see, because we wish justice to be done between landlord and tenant, we are merely interested in the welfare of the business tenant. He must not think that the country outside is not concerned with protection for the professional man and the tenant in the home, as well as other classes of tenant. I support the Amendment gladly.

Mr. WELLOCK: May I ask the Home Secretary whether Clause 16 (3), in the case of a doctor in a well-known doctor's area would cover compensation in respect of the doctor's dispensary?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 95.

Division No. 322.]
AYES.
[2.37 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cassels, J. D.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Berry, Sir George
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J .A (Birm, W.)


Apsley, Lord
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Clarry, Reginald George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Clayton, G. C.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Briggs, J. Harold
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Atkinson, C.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks. Newb'y)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cope, Major William


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Remnant, Sir James


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hurd, Percy A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rye, F. G.


Davies, Mai. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
James Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Salmon, Major I.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sandon, Lord


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. Q.
Savery, S. S.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shepperson, E. W.


Dixey, A. C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Skelton, A. N.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Loder, J. de V.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Edmondson. Major A. J.
Looker, Herbert William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Smithers, Waldron


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Storry-Deans, R.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stott, Lieut.-Colon I W. H.


Finburgh, S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
MacIntyre, Ian
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ganzonl, Sir John
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gates, Percy
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Gower, Sir Robert
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Warrender, Sir Victor


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wells, S. R.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Harrison, G. J. C.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hartington, Marquess of
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hawke, John Anthony
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nuttall, Ellis
Withers, John James


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wolmer, Viscount


Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. Willliam
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, E. (Chester. Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Pilditch, Sir Philip



Hopkins, J. W. W.
Power, Sir John Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardle, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barnes, A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Kelghley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Brlant, Frank
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Lansbury, George
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Varley, Frank B.


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Vlant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
March, S.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dennison, R.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Montague, Frederick
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Owen, Major G.
Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attereliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gosling, Harry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool,
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Groves, T.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rose, Frank H.

CLAUSE 17.—(Limitation on damages for breach of covenants to repair.)

Sir P. PILDITCH: I beg to move, in page 16, line 18, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) A right of re-entry or forfeiture for a breach of any such covenant or agreement as aforesaid shall nut he enforceable, by action or otherwise, unless the lessor proves that the fact that such a notice as is required by Section one hundred and forty-six of the Law of Property Act, 1925, had been served on the lessee was known either—

(a) to the lessee; or
(b) to an under-lessee holding under an under lease which reserved a nominal reversion only to the lessee; or
(c) to the person who last paid the rent due under the lease either on his own behalf or as agent for the lessee or under-lessee;

and that a time reasonably sufficient to enable the repairs to be executed has elapsed since the time when the fact of the service of the notice came to the knowledge of any such person.
Where a notice has been sent by registered post addressed to a person at his last known place of abode in the United Kingdom, then, for the purposes of this Sub-section, that person shall be deemed, unless the contrary is proved, to have had knowledge of the fact that the notice has been served as from the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post.
This is a somewhat formidable looking Amendment, but all it does is to cure a very simple point. I am moving it at the instance of a number of holders of leases as well as other interests and it is intended to cure the case where lessees holding valuable interests in property have in the past either lost or jeopardised their interests owing to the notice served by the owner of the property concerning dilapidations not having reached the lessees in question. I have received particulars of a number of cases where lessees have been placed in the position I describe by a deficiency in regard to the notices which have been served upon them. I do not propose to recite any of these cases, although I think any one of them would show the House that it is a real grievance which it is desirable to remove. I do not think it is necessary to give the particulars of these cases. By the Law of Property Act of 1925 it is provided that a right of re-entry or forfeiture under the stipulation of a breach of the covenant was not enforceable unless the lessor served on the lessee a
notice, which may be served by leaving it on the premises or by sending it through the post to one of the parties interested.
This Amendment would take the matter a little further, and it provides that the lessor should in effect serve a similar notice to that which he serves on the occupying tenant, or leaves upon the premises, upon the lessee, or in cases where property is held on an under-lease, which reserves a nominal reversion only to the lessee, that he should serve a similar notice upon the lessee or upon the person who last paid the rent, and that sufficient time should be allowed to enable the repairs to be executed. This Amendment is one of a class which I have always thought should be carried into effect, and I hope the House will accept it. I do not intend to burden the House with a number of cases which I could give to show that there have been miscarriages of justice owing to the insufficient provision with regard to these notices. I have supplied the Home Secretary with quite a number of these cases, and I hope I have convinced him that it will be fair and reasonable to adopt some such provision as this. I also hope that I have succeeded in putting down this Amendment in a form which will work in with the rest of the Bill.

Sir JOHN POWER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. RYE: I hope the House will not accept this proposal. There has been quite enough tinkering with the law as between landlord and tenant without having any more of it. I do not know why the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) should seek to interfere with the law as laid down in the Law of Property Act, 1925. That law is perfectly clear, and it is a recent Act, and although the hon. Member has said that he has many instances where it has not worked properly I suggest that if there is anything wrong it should be put right by an Amending Act. If we are going to accept this kind of proposal we shall never know where we are. Landlords and tenants should know under what Statutes they are working. At the present moment they are under one Act of Parliament, they look for something else in another Statute, and then they have to come to this Bill for other provisions. I think the law of landlord and
tenant has been attacked quite enough, and tinkered with quite enough. I hope the House will refuse to give this Amendment any consideration at all.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry to hear the observations of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) I think this Amendment a very valuable one. I have submitted it to my legal advisers and they consider it entirely well drafted, entirely in order; and it does meet a real difficulty and injustice. The hon. Member who is such a purist in the law as between landlord and tenant should look at the Title of the Bill. It is a Bill "to amend the law of landlord and tenant." When we find a defect in the ordinary law, and we have an opportunity of amending it, I think it is the duty of the Government to accept any reasonable Amendment which deals with the difficulty in a satisfactory manner.

Sir H. SLESSER: I wish to congratulate the Home Secretary on the position he has taken up. The only objection to this Amendment offered by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) is that it interferes with the law generally of landlord and tenant. But the whole of Part 2 of this Bill amends the law of landlord and tenant, and his objection, therefore, is not to this particular proposal but to the whole of Part 2. Moreover the Law of Property Act, 1925, is a consolidating Statute and therefore is not sacrosanct even on that footing. I do not want to waste time now, except to say that I do not see anything objectionable in the Amendment upon which the hon. Member for Loughborough has poured so much scorn.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Provisions as to covenants not to assign, etc., without licence or consent.)

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I beg to move, in page 16, line 38, after the word "buildings," to insert the words:
and the lessor is not one of the bodies mentioned in Section 4, Subsection (1), paragraph (f).
The object of this Amendment I will explain very briefly and without elaborate argument, because I understand it is viewed with favour by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. When
this Bill was first introduced it contained a provision, a very common provision, that in the case of the sub-letting of a long lease consent by the owner was necessary, but that such consent should not be unreasonably withheld. In Committee an Amendment was made which went further and provided that in the case of leases of 40 years and upwards no consent at all should be necessary except in the last seven years of the tenancy. It seems that in the case of public authorities, Government Departments or municipalities and statutory and public utility companies, the interest of the general public might be seriously prejudiced if this wide provision did not except from the general terms the properties leased by these bodies.
I will give two illustrations to make the matter clear. We will take the case of the docks. It is within the knowledge of everyone who is familiar with docks that there are certain parts of dock premises which can accommodate the largest vessels and other parts of the same docks which cannot do so. At Southampton, for instance, there are certain parts of the dock premises where vessels of over 50,000 tons can berth. The sites along those parts of the dock premises are leased in the public interest to the companies owning those vessels of the largest size. We will suppose that one of the great ocean shipping lines owning 50,000-ton vessels decided to change its port of call. It would be possible, unless this Amendment were accepted, for the company to render the use of those premises by a rival line impossible by leasing the sites of their warehouses to a company employing vessels of much smaller tonnage, which in the public interest could more conveniently be accommodated in other parts of the docks.
I will give another instance which is perhaps even more striking. The problem of traffic in London and its outskirts has led, in a number of cases, to the provision by one or more of the great railway companies of sites adjoining their suburban stations, and these sites have been leased for a long period to companies which are to erect large motor garages to accommodate the cars of passengers so as to enable them to leave their care in safety and complete their journey by rail. It is obviously in the public interest that those sites should
not pass into hands that would not use them for such a purpose. It is all part of the public convenience. It might very easily happen that the sites were of such great value for other purposes of no direct interest to the public, that the companies to whom the leases are granted could make a substantial profit by subleasing, which they would be able to do if the Bill were passed without my Amendment incorporated.

Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the Amendment is on the lines of other provisions for the security of railways, docks and harbours, and it ought to be accepted.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I regret very much to hear that statement by the Home Secretary. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh, but I represent a constituency where the railway companies own considerable property which is not dock property though within the vicinity of the docks, and is let for ordinary trading purposes. If the Amendment is carried what will be the position of the tenants in those premises? This is not a question affecting merely dock berths and so on; it will include all the property that the railway companies own, whether near the railway station or dock or anywhere else. The railway companies are considerable owners of property in many parts of the country. I hope the House will discuss this matter a little more fully, because it is a very serious matter for many of my constituents.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I can see the difficulty pointed out by the last speaker. Would it not be possible, even now, to amend the Amendment by stating precisely the bodies intended in the Amendment; instead of referring to paragraph (f) cannot we say definitely what the bodies are? On referring to paragraph (f) I see that it refers to any Government Department or local authority or public utility or statutory company or charity. With most of these we should all agree. Where the public authority is the land owner the public interest will naturally preponderate in deciding what should be done, but I do not think that
that applies to public utility companies as a whole or to statutory companies. Not being a lawyer I am not quite certain what a statutory company is. I take it that a railway company is a statutory company, and all gas and electric light companies are statutory companies. Perhaps tramway companies and private dock authorities are statutory also. There is no difference in the House at all so far as the land-owning body is a body subject to public control, but when you get any of these statutory companies or public utility companies which are not subject to public control to exercise their rights either under a Statute or simply as ordinary shareholders with limited dividends, I do not think that in those cases we ought to differentiate between the ordinary landowner operating his property directly for his own personal gain, and the company, whether statutory or public utility, which also is going to operate that property, not necessarily or primarily in the public interest, but in the interest of the corporate body possessing the property.
Therefore, I respectfully submit that if the Amendment is to be accepted we should limit it to those public authorities where the public interest must necessarily predominate in the method of carrying on a business, and not extend it broadcast to all railways or tramway property. As canals went out of use 80 years ago and gradually failed to carry on their usual business, so now railways are passing through the same stage. It would be extremely undesirable to give to railway companies the power to prevent any tenants of theirs from changing the character of the business carried on in those premises by reason of the fact that they were statutory companies and therefore exempt from all these interferences. I hope that the Mover of the Amendment will see his way to make some modification in that direction. In the case of the Southampton Docks which belong to the railway company, I can conceive a reason why the Cunard Company, if that be the company which owns the warehouses and has the lease, should have the power to sub-let, in spite of the fact that the railway company did not think it was good business to allow the Cunard Company any possibility of shifting from Southampton to another port.

Mr. WITHERS: I think the speakers on this point have been somewhat misled and have not looked into the matter carefully. They will notice that this question is limited to cases where a lease has been granted for more than 40 years and is made in consideration, wholly or partly of the erection or the substantial improvement, addition, or operation for building. That is to say, the dock company or whoever the landlord is has granted to some other tenant in consideration of these improvements a, lease at 40 years or more, but that is quite a different thing from the explanation given by the Mover. Here you have a case where the tenant has a great interest in the property and the Committee upstairs very rightly provided that he should have the right to sublet to whoever he liked. He has a substantial interest in the property and can be trusted to look after it. I suggest that in the interest of the tenants this provision should be allowed to stand as it is and that the reasons given for the Amendment do not apply.

Mr. RYE: With very great respect to the hon. Member who has just spoken, I do not think it would be fair in the circumstances mentioned by the Mover that the new tenant should be in competition with the landlord. I am surprised at the right, hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) suggesting that the Amendment is wrong. Has he considered the position of public authorities who, rightly or wrongly, carry on municipal trading? Would he think it fair that while such authorities are engaged in the excellent enterprise of selling, in some cases at the ratepayers' expense, one of their tenants, who had a lease coming within the provisions of this Bill should assign to someone else who would directly enter into competition with the local authority and try to undersell them. I am astonished that anyone who holds Socialist views should put forward that proposal. I thought if there was anyone who would protest against outside competition with municipal trading it was the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am afraid the hon. Member does not know me as well as I know him.

Sir W. PERRING: I submit to the Solicitor-General that the answers given by the Home Secretary on this point have been far from reassuring. Not only is there the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) but a local authority might give a long lease to somebody for a consideration, similar to that which he mentioned, and if that authority carried on municipal trading they might withhold their consent to the sub-letting of the premises. If the local authority thought fit to say that the new occupier would be a competitor with them and withheld their consent it would be unreasonable. We ought to limit this proposal, and I am sure it is within the skill of the Solicitor-General to do so. If we desire to do what the Amendment suggests why not bring in another Clause, making this provision for this particular class of property. The Amendment is a wholesale one, and is going to affect a great number of interests, quite apart from those which have been mentioned. The Solicitor-General should give us some further information and an assurance that he has considered the matter in all its bearings and not from the limited outlook indicated by the Mover.

Mr. DALTON: In view of the doubt which evidently exists as to the scope and effect of the Amendment I suggest that it should be withdrawn at this stage, reconsidered in another place, and, perhaps, submitted again to the House in a more clear cut form. As it stands, several distinct classes of public bodies and corporations are affected by it. We on this side make no objection as regards safeguarding the position of Government departments, public authorities or even certain further classes which might be affected, but we have grave doubts about some classes which might be brought in, and it is not possible to deal with them all in a bald form of words of this kind.

3.0 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I had not the advantage of hearing the Home Secretary explaining the scope of this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not!"] Well I had not the advantage of hearing him accept it, but I think there should not be so much difficulty in understanding its scope as some hon. Members appear to feel. I have been asked to give a further
explanation of it. I am sure the Mover gave some explanation, but I am quite willing to state what I understood by it when I first saw it on the Order Paper. It was necessary in consequence of an Amendment made in Committee on the motion of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers). It occurred to those responsible for the undertakings mentioned that this would have the effect of tying up some of their property over which it was essential in the performance of their public duties they should have continued control.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What are the public duties of a railway company?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am surprised at that question. They are common carriers.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it their business to preserve the status quo of their property?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The business of a railway company—I am not thinking merely of their statutory duties —is to conduct their business so as to afford the greatest possible facilities to the travelling public. It is no part of a railway company's duty to become landlords in the ordinary sense of the word or owners of property not required in connection with their undertaking. Under the general law if a railway company has land, not required for the purposes of its undertaking, that land becomes surplus, and sooner or later must be returned to the owners of adjoining property. No doubt, there are cases where railway companies have rather extended powers of retaining land but, generally speaking, the railway company or dock company or local authority is not like an ordinary landlord, holding land for profit. They are holding it for the purposes of their undertaking, either in the present or the immediate or possibly more distant future.
Having regard to the fact that they have acquired that property and are holding it with a view to use in connection with the purposes for which they acquired it, it seems not unreasonable that they should be free from restrictions and liabilities to which an ordinary landlord is exposed. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved this Amendment, I should assume—I have not had any con-
versation with him, nor did I know about the Amendment until I saw it on the Paper—moved it in order to preserve the freedom of these public authorities to conduct their affairs with due regard to the interests that are primarily theirs. In the ordinary way, it is certain that this Amendment can have a very limited scope and reach. It will apply only to those properties that are held and controlled by the public companies to which reference has been made, and I feel sure that it will not affect, generally speaking, the privileges which tenants acquire under this Bill, if there are any, contrary apparently to the opinion of some hon. Members opposite. I hope the acceptance of this Amendment by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will, on reconsideration, commend itself to the House.
The hon. Gentleman opposite suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn and that it should be re-introduced in another place. I am glad to find that somebody opposite has some use for the other place, but I am a little surprised to hear the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman to the Government that they should fall so low as to let the proper Amendment be made in that other place. I prefer to adopt the attitude that this House had better make its own Amendments, and if the Bill requires fresh consideration, the other House, fortunately, does offer an Opportunity for such fresh consideration. I will promise that the fullest opportunity shall be taken of it, and I can give hon. Members in all parts of the House the fullest and most sincere assurances that my right hon. Friend will certainly consider the matter further, and then we shall seek to amend it, if permission be given, so as to make it as useful as possible for the purpose for which it is required.

Sir H. SLESSER: We regret that the hon. and learned Member has not seen fit to accept the very reasonable suggestion made by my hon. Friend. I thought it was the Government and their supporters who were so dissatisfied with another place that they had about 20 or 30 schemes for its reform, but, however that may be, the substantial reason for this Amendment in its present form is very unsatisfactory. Apart from the merits which have been discussed, it purports to deal with Part II of this Bill,
and Part II is dealing with the general law of landlord and tenant. I do not blame the hon. and gallant Member who introduced the Amendment for the particular drafting of it, but it is most unfortunate, because it throws you back on to Part I of this Bill, and that means that in the ordinary consideration of the law of landlords and tenants, when you are dealing with the Law of Property Act and the Conveyancing Act, in order to discover this particular right, you have to get hold of Part I of this Bill, which has really no direct relation at all to the general law of landlords and tenants. I should have thought that that alone would have shown how unsatisfactory is this Amendment in its present form. Surely, as a mere matter of drafting or understanding of what this Measure is about, this Amendment is about as unsatisfactory a way of dealing with the matter as possible.
We have been told that the bodies mentioned in Clause 4 (1, f) are themselves not adequately denned. It has been pointed out how railway companies,

for example, either under private Acts of Parliament or otherwise, are landlords, and use their land for letting it out to tenants for purposes which are not immediately concerned with their undertakings; and the same may be true of any other body. In the circumstances, I think it is a hasty step to accept this Amendment, which, with all due respect to its Mover, is ill-drafted and does not really perform the function it is intended to perform. There is another place where these things, in spite of the hon. Gentle' man's badinage, can be adequately dealt with. I must therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the very reasonable suggestion which has been made, otherwise we shall have to divide the House. The House should not at this moment put this particular blemish on the Bill, but should leave the matter for further consideration.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 91.

Division No. 323.]
AYES.
[3.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cockerill, Brlg.-General Sir George
Harrison, G. J. C.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hartlngton, Marquess of


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennlngton)


Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Cope, Major William
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Apsley, Lord
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hawke, John Anthony


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(LIndsey, Galnsbro)
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Astor, MaJ. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cunllffe, Sir Herbert
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)


Atkinson, C.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Heneage, Lleut.-Col. Arthur P.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Balnlel, Lord
Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davles, MaJ. Geo. F. (Somerset.Yeovll)
Holt, Captain H. P.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Davles, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Davles, Dr. Vernon
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C K.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hume, Sir G. H.


Berry, Sir George
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hurd, Percy A.


Birchall, Maior J. Dearman
Dixey, A. C.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Eden, Captain Anthony
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Ersklne, James Malcolm Montelth
James Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Briggs, J. Harold
Everard, W. Lindsay
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Briscoe, Richard George
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Klnioch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lamb, J. Q.


Broun-Llndsay, Major H.
Finburgh, S.
Looker, Herbert William


Brown, Brig.-G en. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Buckingham, Sir H.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Luce, MaJ.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fraser, Captain Ian
Maclntyre, Ian


Campbell, E. T.
Galbralth, J. F. W.
McLean, Major A.


Cassels, J. D.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Macmlllan, Captain H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gates, Percy
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Glbbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel


Chadwlck, Sir Robert Burton
Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Blrm.,W.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon, B. M.


Clayton, G. C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sandon, Lord
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Savery, S. S.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Shepperson, E. W.
Wells, S. R.


Nuttall, Ellis
Skelton, A. N.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedtord, Luton)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Penny, Frederick George
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smithers, Waldron
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Somervllle, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wolmer, Viscount


Pilcher, G.
Storry-Deans, R.
Wood, B C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Plldltch, Sir Philip
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Power, Sir John Cecil
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, Sir S. HIll- (High Peak)


Remnant, Sir James
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell



Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Rye, F. G.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Salmon, Major I.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Captain Margesson.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wallace, Captain D. E.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Rltson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Stall. Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W R., Elland)


Ammon, Charles George
Hardle, George D.
Rose, Frank H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hore-Beilsha, Leslie
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Sowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Briant, Frank
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Oalton, Hugh
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Vlant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnlco, H.
Maxton, James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Montague, Frederick
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllfle)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Glllett, George M.
Owen, Major G.
Windsor, Walter


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Withers, John James


Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edln., Cent.)
Perring, Sir William George
Womersley, W. J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W,


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.



Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


Resolution agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 16, line 38, to leave out the words "such licence or consent is only to be required to," and to insert instead thereof the words "in the case of."
This Amendment and the succeeding one are purely drafting Amendments, or if not that, at least consequential upon an Amendment made in Committee in order to put the Clause in a rather better form. It is also to ensure that the lessor in a building lease shall be informed as to the changes in connection with his property of which it is essential that he should have notice. If these Amendments
are not inserted he will be ignorant of what is being done with his own property. The Amendments do not give him any power to interfere with the disposal of the property.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 42, leave out the words "during the last seven years of the term," and insert instead thereof the words:
effected more than seven years before the end of the term no consent or licence shall be required, but notice in writing of the transaction shall be given to the lessor within six months after the transaction is. effected."—(The Solicitor-General.)

Brigadier-General Sir GEORGE COCKERILL: I beg to move, in page 17, line 36, after the second word "of," to insert the words:
the capitalised value of the net addition to the letting value of the holding that is determined to be the direct result of the alteration of the user, and of.
Cases frequently arise where a tenant desires an alteration of user which would bring him distinct financial advantage. At present there is no inducement whatever to the landlord to give his assent. He may give all or he may give none, but there is no halfway house. The object of this Amendment is to provide a halfway house, where there is a distinct value in the user to the tenant, to enable the tenant to acquire that user by agreement with the landlord.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. and gallant Friend has spoken on behalf of the tenant, and I, too, think the tenant will be placed in an awkward position if some such change as this is not made, and I think the same consideration applies to the landlord. If left as it is, the landlord will be in the invidious position of having arbitrarily to refuse his consent and will have to forgo any share in the improvement of the premises which might take place if this improvement were allowed to be made. I am not quite sure whether my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is prepared to deal with this matter at the moment. It is an important point, and I think if he said he would give it consideration I would advise my hon. and gallant Friend to agree to postponement.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that would he the best course. The Amendment raises rather a difficult point. I have not yet had time to consult the Law Officers upon it. The Lord Chancellor will be in charge of the Bill in another place, and I will consult him before it gets there.

Sir G. COCKERILL: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 20.—(Tribunal.)

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 19, line 16, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) In any proceedings before the tribunal not more than one expert witness
on either side shall be heard unless the tribunal otherwise directs.
I think this provision is of great importance.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ATKINSON: I beg to move, in page 19, line 20, after the word "tribunal," to insert the words "if a tribunal other than the High Court."
Clause 20 provides that for the purpose of this Act the tribunal may consist of one of a panel of referees, but in cases involving questions of law or on account of the magnitude of the claim, it is thought desirable that the matter should be tried by the High Court. A Judge may order that the claim shall be tried in the High Court. Sub-section (3) of Clause 20 provides that:
The decision of the tribunal on any question of fact shall be final and binding on the parties and the persons claiming under them respectively, but the tribunal may, and shall if the High Court so directs, state at any stage of the proceedings in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court any question of law arising in the course of the proceedings.
The difficulty is which is the tribunal referred to in the first line of Sub-section (3). As a matter of construction, it refers to both forms of the tribunal, that is the panel of referees and the High Court. The result is that the High Court has been directed by this provision to direct itself to state a case for its own consideration, and of course that would be an absurdity, and cannot be intended. Supposing the word "tribunal" does not include the High Court, then you get this result that you have a provision saying that the decision of one of a panel of referees on questions of fact shall be binding, and you leave an appeal to the High Court on questions of fact. It cannot be intended that there should be a right of appeal on questions of fact to the Judge and no right of appeal on questions of fact from the referees.
If it be thought necessary to preserve the right of appeal on questions of fact from the superior Court, surely there ought to be the same right of appeal from the panel of referees. The Amendment I am suggesting would clear up all those doubts, and it would make it clear that the word "tribunal" refers to both forms. It would also make it clear that
the decision of both tribunals on questions of fact should be final and binding. I submit that this instruction would be perfectly simple and the result would be logical. As it is you get into difficulties whichever meaning is given to the tribunal. In the one case you have the High Court being permitted to state a case for its own consideration, and in the other case you have the anomaly of the decision of the Judge being open to appeal, while there is no appeal from the decision of the lesser tribunal.

Mr. NUTTALL: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and learned Friend has a number of Amendments on the Paper, some of which I can accept, but this one raises a complicated point which I should not like to decide in the absence of the Law Officers. Might I make the suggestion that I will consult the Lord Chancellor upon it? My Parliamentary draftsmen tell me that the Bill is rightly drawn, and that the meaning of the words "High Court" is confined by Subsection (1) of Clause 20 to certain provisions of the Bill only. While I have the greatest respect for my hon. and learned Friend as a lawyer—and, of course, also as an individual—I got out of it just in time—I will, if he will allow me, consider the point again before the Bill reaches another place.

Mr. ATKINSON: Certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 19, line 27, after the word "from" insert the words "any decision of."—[Mr. Atkinson.]

CLAUSE 22.— (Service of Notices.)

Mr. ATKINSON: I beg to move, in page 20, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:
Unless or until a tenant of a holding shall have received notice that the person theretofore entitled to receive the rents and profits of the holding (hereinafter referred to as "the original landlord ") has ceased to be so entitled, and also notice of the name and address of the person who has become entitled to receive such rents and profits, any claim, notice, request, demand, or other instrument which the tenant shall serve upon or deliver to the original land-
lord shall be deemed to have been served upon or delivered to the landlord of such holding.

Mr. NUTTALL: I beg to second the Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could we not hear from the Home Secretary what change this actually makes in the present law? It sounds all right if we read it out, but, not being a lawyer, I do not quite know what effect it will have.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the House knows, this Bill has been founded very largely on the Agricultural Holdings Act, and there was either a mistake or a lapse in the original Agricultural Holdings Act in relation to the service of notices by tenants. That Act had to be amended by an amending Act, and the same Amendment is being imported into this Bill, so as to make it quite clear on whom notices should be served when there is a change of ownership.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Interpretation.)

Sir W. PERRING: I beg to move, in page 21, line 39, to leave out the words "for a year or for any longer period."
My purpose here is to bring within the scope of the Bill quite a large number of tenants who in many parts of the country hold tenancies for a period less than one year. I am not acquainted with them myself very much in London, but I am told that in many parts of the country that is the case, and we feel that, where they have a case and can make out before the tribunal a claim which comes within the compass of the Bill, they should have that opportunity. I hope the Government, although I did not secure their goodwill on the last Amendment I moved, will realise that I am submitting in this case something that commends itself to them and will give it their approval and allow it to be embodied in the Bill.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
This concession is going to be of considerable benefit to a large number of smaller tenants. In any case, whatever the terms of the tenancy may be, the tenant or his predecessor must have been
five years in occupation before he can claim anything whatever. Whether a man holds a quarterly or a yearly agreement, he still has to qualify by five years' occupancy of the premises. A man with a tenancy of less than 12 months is as much entitled to benefit as anyone else. In my constituency the railway company owns a vast estate upon which offices and shops are built, and three months is the utmost extent of the tenancy. People have spent £40,000 and more on building on a three months' tenancy. It may be said they have done it with their eyes open, but they did it because they could not get a tenancy of any other sort. I do not want to see that type of man debarred from the benefits of the Bill. I take it the Bill was intended to benefit tenants as a whole. By this Amendment you will include thousands of small traders, and you will only be giving them the same rights as are afforded to other tenants.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I only want to say, in addition to what has been said by the Mover and Seconder, that you have to consider not merely tenancies which are at present under a year but to what extent this Bill in its present form will increase the number of those tenancies for the purpose of evading the provisions of the Bill. That is quite a serious point and I think it desirable that the Amendment should be adopted.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: At first I thought the Amendment rather a revolution, and it would have been with the Bill as it was brought into the House, but now we have inserted that no tenant, even a yearly tenant, can obtain compensation for improvements unless they were made three years before the termination of the tenancy. No tenant can claim compensation for goodwill unless he had five years' tenancy building up that goodwill. It seems to me to create no difference whatever whether a tenant sits there- as a tenant under an agreement for three or five years or whether he sits, as the Bill now declares, as a yearly tenant for three or five years. It does not seem to me to make the slightest difference whether he is a quarterly or a yearly tenant. By agreement the tenancy may run on for many
years. After very full consideration, it seems to me the Amendment is a perfectly reasonable one and does not really extend the scope of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I beg to move, in page 21, line 42, at the end, to insert the words:
The expression 'predecessors in title' means any person through whom the tenant has derived title, whether by assignment, by will, by intestacy, or by operation or law.

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I accept it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we not going to have any word from the Government whether they accept or not?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I said that I accept it. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not hear me. I think it an admirable Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not know how the draftsmen and the Home Secretary can think this is an excellent Amendment. It seems to me to be absolutely platitudinous. No one can quarrel with the definition.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If no one else can quarrel with it, I hope you will not.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely "predecessor in title" must be an understood phrase hi law without putting it into every Act of Parliament in which the words occur in great detail like this. It surely is not necessary to give a definition of generally accepted words. I do not understand why the Bill as originally drafted, where there was no definition, was not good enough.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can only say that there has been an enormous amount of litigation on these very words, and I want to have a comprehensive definition in order that the Act shall not cause litigation if it can be avoided.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: And that is what the lawyers understand!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think so

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ATKINSON: I beg to move, in page 22, line 2, after the word "entitled," to insert the words "as between himself and the lessee."
This raises an important point, because, if anything is essential in this Bill, it is essential to have it made perfectly clear. The present definition is taken from the Agricultural Holdings Act. As a short way of stating my own argument, I will read what was said about it in the Court of Appeal three or four months ago by Lord Justice Atkin. The definition has led to a great deal of litigation because no one knows what, it means. He said:
I agree in thinking it most desirable to have it made clear who is the person liable to pay compensation to the tenant and thereby obviate a great deal of litigation which must necessarily follow from the doubtful meaning of the statutory definition of ' landlord ' as ' the person for the time being entitled to receive the rents and profits of the land.' Do those words mean the person entitled to receive the rents and profit as between himself and the tenant, or the person entitled to receive them as between himself and his vendor, a former owner? Do the words include other persons beneficially interested in the rents and profits, a Cestui que trust, for instance, or an equitable mortgagee? And do they ever include a purchaser under a contract of sale, and, if so, in what circumstances do they include him? I do not propose to try and solve these doubts now.
Then he added,
Perhaps I may add there is a proposal on foot for extending compensation to tenants, other than agricultural tenants in respect of improvements. I cannot refrain from expressing the hope that any proposed legislation should point out as clearly as possible the person who is to pay the compensation and that the definition of that person should as far as possible correspond with the definition of the person liable to pay compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act.
The House will see from that the number of problems that may arise and the number of difficulties that may face a tenant when he comes to make his claim. The words I suggest:
Any person for the time being entitled 'as between himself and the lessee ' "—
will answer all these questions in a perfectly simple way. The tenant will know that the only person he has to go for and can go for is the person to whom he pays his rent. He must know that. There can be no mistake about it. It seems to me highly desirable that the tenant should be protected in regard to the persons
against whom he must make his claim, and I suggest that these words which I have proposed answer all the difficulties which have been raised with regard to the question of definition. I have submitted the question to the Lord Justice in question and be agrees that this Amendment would solve the difficulties and make the definition intelligible and so prevent litigation.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know, of course, of the decision of the Lord Justice in question and his view as to the difficulties of interpretation. My hon. and learned Friend was good enough to send me with his Amendment an extract from the statement by the Lord Justice. I believe there have been three decisions in the Court of Appeal saying that the definition in the Agricultural Holdings Act is wrong, and I think on each occasion they have tried to draft a definition themselves. I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend who tells me for the first time that the Lord Justice in question agrees with his Amendment. That opinion, of course, and the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend carries very great weight with me, but I wish to take an opportunity of considering the matter. It is a purely legal question and I do not think that I ought to accept the definition even from the Lord Justice himself until I have considered the matter with my advisers. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw the Amendment for the time being.

Mr. ATKINSON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to charges).

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 23, line 12, after the word "expended," to insert the words
including any proper costs, charges, or expenses incurred by a landlord in opposing any proposal by a tenant to execute an improvement or in contesting a claim for compensation.
This Amendment is purely consequential on the Amendment inserted earlier, in Clause 11, page 12, line 42.

Mr. RYE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to insert the words "or of carrying out any improvement as aforesaid."
The landlord has the right when the tenant has applied for leave to make an improvement, to carry out the improvement himself. In that case, if the landlord did carry out the improvement, he would presumably instruct a person to survey and supervise the work, prepare plans, &c, and the cost of that work, that is, the surveyor's fees, &c., should be properly added to the amount which the landlord would be entitled to charge as costs.

Colonel APPLIN: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The words now proposed by the hon. Member are not necessary. In connection with the carrying out the improvements by the landlord, the costs, of course, are costs under the provisions of my Amendment. If, on the other hand, the landlord gives notice to the tenant that he will do the improvements himself, then the landlord would get the cost of opposing the tenant's intention of carrying them out.

Mr. RYE: Supposing the landlord carries out the work himself.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If he carried out the work himself, then those would be costs under the Amendment as I have moved it.

Mr. RYE: Either in opposing or contesting the claim?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Either in opposing or contesting. The tenant makes his claim to carry out the improvement. It goes before the tribunal and the landlord then opposes or contests, or in the course of the proceedings he agrees to carry out the improvement himself. I am advised that under those circumstances, whichever way it goes, they are costs which would be included in the terms of my Amendment, and as such could be quite properly added to the capital sum. My hon. Friend's Amendment is not necessary for carrying out the purpose which he has in mind.

Mr. RYE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter before a further stage?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will do so.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Bill to be read the Third time upon Monday next, 14th November.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Order for Second Beading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it actually intended to deal with this Measure now? I understand several important Acts have been introduced into this Bill for the first time. The Rent Restrictions Act has been put in. I should like to ask whether this is the case or not, because I desire to oppose its inclusion in this Measure on the ground that this Act may require to be discussed and amended in several respects. Is it intended to rush this Bill through at 10 minutes to four this afternoon?

Mr. SPEAKER: According to the practice of the House any reference to Acts included in this Bill is dealt with on Committee stage.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: There is an admirable procedure in former years by which a Select Committee of the House was assembled in order to consider the inclusion in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill of each included Measure. Before we pass the Second Reading I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether that procedure is still in operation, and if so when the next Select Committee will be assembled?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I will give the hon. Member the information he asks. The next time the Committee is to assemble is in 1928, but I think I can assure him that the Government will take the necessary steps well in advance to see that the procedure operates.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to insurance against unemployment, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the sums necessary to enable seamen, marines, soldiers, and airmen discharged after the commencement of the said Act, to be credited under
Section forty-one of The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, with thirty contributions, such contributions being treated as having been paid in respect of the discharged person at the rate of one contribution per week over a period ending with the week in which his discharge takes place.

The remaining Government Orders were read and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Five Minutes before Four o'Clock.